Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Einstein — Crypto & Market Intelligence

Arbitrage Scanner

find_arbitrage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan for live arbitrage: DEX price dislocations, flash-loan-fundable routes, cross-chain spreads, or prediction-market mispricings. [Paid: $0.60–$1.00 per call from your Einstein credit balance. Free alternatives exist for several of these — see list_einstein_capabilities.]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNodex · flashloan · cross_chain · prediction_market.dex
chainNoBlockchain network.base
limitNoMaximum results (1-100).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skillNoWhich Einstein capability answered. These tools route onto one of many skills by an enum argument, so this names the branch that actually ran.
reasonNoWhy there is no analysis, when `available` is false.
analysisNoThe written answer, identical to the result's text block. This is the field to read: the rest of the payload is whichever capability answered, and its shape varies by tool and by argument.
availableNoTrue when the analysis ran. False when it did not — no capability matched the arguments, the caller is out of credit, billing was unavailable, or the skill produced nothing. NOT a statement about the market.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "analysis": {
      +      "description": "The written answer, identical to the result's text block. This is the field to read: the rest of the payload is whichever capability answered, and its shape varies by tool and by argument.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "available": {
      +      "description": "True when the analysis ran. False when it did not — no capability matched the arguments, the caller is out of credit, billing was unavailable, or the skill produced nothing. NOT a statement about the market.",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "reason": {
      +      "description": "Why there is no analysis, when `available` is false.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "skill": {
      +      "description": "Which Einstein capability answered. These tools route onto one of many skills by an enum argument, so this names the branch that actually ran.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. It does so by disclosing the per-call cost ($0.60–$1.00) and the existence of free alternatives, plus 'live' scanning. No contradiction exists, and the added cost/context is valuable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, followed by a compact pricing/alternatives note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant repetition of the input schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it scans, the four kinds, the paid nature, and where to find free alternatives. Nothing critical for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `kind`, `chain`, and `limit`. The description adds meaningful semantic gloss by translating each arbitrage category into plain-language concepts (e.g., 'flash-loan-fundable routes' for flashloan), which helps an agent pick the right enum value. It does not add extra semantics for chain or limit, but 100% coverage keeps this strong.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Scan for live arbitrage') and enumerates four concrete domains that map directly to the `kind` parameter: DEX price dislocations, flash-loan-fundable routes, cross-chain spreads, and prediction-market mispricings. This clearly differentiates find_arbitrage from nearby siblings like find_yield or scan_market.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the tool's domain explicit and adds usage context by noting it is a paid call with free alternatives, directing the agent to list_einstein_capabilities. It does not name specific sibling tools or exclusion conditions, but the first sentence plus the pricing pointer gives sufficient context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.